Editorial: Shifting views on gay marriage

Saturday

May 31, 2008 at 12:01 AMMay 31, 2008 at 10:19 PM

Since legalizing same-sex marriage became a political issue, there have been calls to "let the people vote," not just here in Massachusetts but across the country. There have been other calls, though not as loud, to resist the urge to put civil rights issues to a popular vote.

Since legalizing same-sex marriage became a political issue, there have been calls to "let the people vote," not just here in Massachusetts but across the country. There have been other calls, though not as loud, to resist the urge to put civil rights issues to a popular vote.

One response to this latter objection is that legal rights have always been determined according to a political process, not just a judicial one. But that doesn't mean the people have a right to vote on any issue that fires them up.

We are a nation governed by laws, not plebiscites. Most laws, and all amendments to the federal Constitution, are enacted by the votes of elected representatives, not every citizen.

The authors of our state and federal constitutions had good reasons for making the amendment process difficult and time-consuming. They were suspicious of direct democracy. They worried that the people, in the heat of a passing controversy, might make mistakes that could be avoided by requiring a slow, deliberative process.

The virtue of a protracted amendment procedure is especially evident when public opinion on a particular topic is changing, and same-sex marriage is a perfect example.

If the citizens of Massachusetts had been allowed to vote the day after the Supreme Judicial Court ruled it unconstitutional to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples, a statewide ban likely would have passed by a landslide. But Bay State voters had months, even years, to think about and argue about gay marriage, to lobby legislators and campaign for candidates whose views on the issue reflected their own.

Over that time, as thousands of same-sex couples took legal vows previously unavailable to them, public opinion changed. No gay marriage proponents were defeated in their bids for seats in the Legislature, while a couple of opponents were. The leaders of groups opposed to equal marriage rights have mostly moved on. Gay marriage in Massachusetts is here to stay.

California is now undergoing a similar experience. Its highest court has legalized same-sex marriage, and voters will consider this fall a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to a single man and a single woman.

But public opinion there is changing as well. In 2000, voters approved a statute limiting marriage to a man and a woman by 61 percent of the electorate. A poll this week found majority approval for gay marriage, 51 percent to 42 percent.

After Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, 26 states rushed through amendments to their constitutions banning it. Those efforts reflected discomfort with a new idea and election-year politics. Public opinion is changing in those places as well, as people come to realize that marrying the person you love is fundamental to the "pursuit of happiness" our freedoms are meant to protect. Someday, historians will wonder what the fuss was all about.

Meanwhile, the Massachusetts Constitution, authored by John Adams, is looking smarter all the time. Public opinion can change quickly, which is why constitutions should only be changed slowly.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.